probabilistic version
But we're not out of danger, however, for those who now face the problem of evil chance. According to this version of the problem, the coexistence of God and evil are logically possible, but nevertheless, it is highly unlikely. The scope and depth of evil in the world are so great that it is unlikely that God could have sufficient moral reasons is allowed. Therefore, given the evil in the world, it is unlikely that God exists. This is a much more powerful argument, and therefore in the debate tonight I want to focus our attention on it.
In response to this version of the problem of evil, I have three observations.
We are not in a good position to assess the probability that God has a morally sufficient reason for the evils that occur: As individuals finite, we are limited in space, time, intelligence and insight, but the omniscient and sovereign God, who sees the end from the beginning, providentially orders history so that their goals are ultimately achieved through free human decisions. In order to achieve their ends, God may have to bear the evils in the way that humans make free. Males that seem useless to us within our limited framework can be seen as just allowed within a wider framework of God. A brutal murder of a man innocent, for example, could produce a domino effect throughout the story so that sufficient moral reason to allow God may not appear until centuries later, perhaps in another country. When you think of the providence of God over the whole story, then I think you can see how desperate merely observers to speculate on the likelihood that God could be a sufficient moral reason to allow a particular evil. We're not just in a good position to assess the likelihood of such.
Christian faith involves doctrines that increase the likelihood of co-existence of God and evil. Thus, these doctrines diminish any improbability of the existence of God believes that the question of the existence of evil. What are some of these doctrines? Let me mention four.
The main purpose of life is not happiness, but knowledge of God. One of the reasons for the problem of evil seems so baffling is that we tend to think that the goal of human life is happiness in this world. But in the Christian perspective this is false. The end of man is not happiness itself, but the knowledge of God in the end will bring true and everlasting human fulfillment. Most damage occurs in life that seem totally useless with respect to the production of human happiness, but can not be unjustified with respect to the production of knowledge of God. Innocent human suffering is an opportunity to deepen the dependence and trust in God, either by the victim or perhaps you rodean.Si God's purpose is achieved through our suffering, it all depends on how to respond freely .
Humanity is in a state of rebellion against God and his purpose. Rather than submit to and worship God, people are rebelling against God and go their own way and so are far from God, morally guilty before him, and groping in spiritual darkness, pursuing the false gods of his own creation . The terrible human evils in the world are testimony the depravity of man in this state of separation from God. The Christian is not surprised by human evil in the world. On the contrary, it is expected of them! The Bible says that God has given mankind to sin you have chosen. Does not interfere to stop it, but allows human depravity to take its course. This only serves to raise humanity's moral responsibility before God and our sinfulness and our need of forgiveness and moral cleanliness.
Knowledge of God is poured out on eternal life. In the Christian perspective, this life is not all there. Jesus promised eternal life to all who put their trust in Him as Savior and Lord. In the afterlife God will reward those who have given their suffering in the value and trust with an eternal life of joy unspeakable Cor. 4. 16-18. The apostle Paul who wrote much of the New Testament, lived a life of incredible suffering, and yet wrote: "Do not lose heart. For this slight momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison. To not look at things that are seen but to things that are invisible. For the things which are seen are transient, but things unseen are eternal " (II Cor. 4. 16-18) . Paul imagines a scale, so to speak, in which the sufferings of this life is placed on one side, while on the other side stands the glory that God will give to their children in heaven! The weight of glory is so great that the sufferings of this life, literally, can not even be compared to him! eternity spent in the more the sufferings of this life, reduced to a infinitesimal moment. And that is why Paul could refer to them as "mild" and "momentary" affliction. Despite what he suffered, his sufferings were simply overwhelmed by the ocean of divine eternity and the joy which God lavishes upon us who trust him.
knowledge of God is immeasurable good. To know God, the source of infinite goodness and love, is an incomparable good compliance of human existence. The sufferings of this life, you can not even compare to her. Thus, the person who knows God no matter what suffering, no matter how terrible the pain can still say: "God is good to me," simply by virtue of the fact that he knows God, an incommensurable good.
These four Christian doctrines greatly reduce any likelihood of that evil seems to embark on the existence of God.
3. In relation to the scope of the evidence, the existence of God is probable. Probabilities are relative to the background information to consider. For example, suppose Joe is a student at the University of Western Ontario. Now suppose that ninety percent of the students of Western Ontario resorts. In regards to this information, it is likely that the skis. But suppose we also learn that Joe is an amputee and that ninety-five percent of the amputees at the University of Western Ontario, not skiing. Suddenly, the probability of Joe to be a skier was reversed dramatically!
Similarly, if all you consider the background information is evil in the world, then it is not surprising that the existence of God seem unlikely in relation to that. But the real question is whether the existence of God is improbable in relation to the total available evidence. I am convinced that when considering the overall evidence, the existence of God is very likely.
Now, instead of reviewing the many different arguments for the existence of God at this point, let me mention one. And God provides the best explanation of moral goals in the world.
If God does not exist, objective moral values \u200b\u200bdo not exist. Many theists and atheists alike agree on this point .. Without God, there is no absolute good that is imposed on our consciousness., Professor Michael Ruse, philosopher of science and atheist at the University of Guelph, says,
The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality, because that awareness of the biological value. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, 'Love your neighbor as yourself ", they think they are above and beyond refer to themselves. However, this reference is really unfounded. Morality is simply an aid to survival and reproduction and any deeper meaning is illusory.
Or consider the late JL Mackie, a professor of philosophy at the University of Oxford and one of the most influential atheists of our time. According Mackie, "Yes ... there ... The objective values, make the existence of a god more likely to have been without them. ... So we have a defensible argument from morality to the existence of a god. In order to avoid the existence of God, Mackie, therefore refused to admit that moral values \u200b\u200bexist. He wrote, "It is easy to explain this moral sense as a natural product of biological and social evolution rather have been implemented by an author of nature. "
But if that is the case, then the objective ethics goes out the window, along with the teísmo.Entonces, human beings have no intrinsic moral value. For example, in India, women are expected to be burned alive on the funeral pyres of their deceased husbands. The British put an end to this practice. However, Michael Ruse, in the discussion of this practice, it says very clearly and consistently, "Obviously, this practice is totally alien to Western customs and morality. In fact, we believe that the widow sacrifice is totally immoral. It Clearly there is nothing special about this objective morality, nor is it something that one would expect the inevitable product of natural selection. "In other words, everything becomes relative and absolute values \u200b\u200bare not goals.
Friedrich Nietzsche, the atheist largest in the last century, which proclaimed the death of God, he understood very well. "The End of Christianity," wrote Nietzsche, "means the advent of nihilism. Only man is able to live beyond good and evil acquire dominance in the new era of nihilism, which is already in the door I think that the ghost of Friedrich Nietzsche and pursuing all atheists, because if there is no God, then why not be true nihilism?
Observe carefully what we are asking for. The question is, "Should we believe in God to live a moral life?" I would say, "No" Nor is the question, "Can we recognize objective moral values without believing in God? "I would say we could. Nor is the question," Can you make a coherent system of ethics without reference to God? "It is perfectly possible." Rather, the question is: "the objective moral values \u200b\u200bexist, if God does not exist? ". I see no reason to think that in the absence of God, human beings have an objective moral value. After all, if there is no God, what is so special about humans? They're just accidental products of nature, which have evolved relatively little in the infinitesimal point of dust lost somewhere in the heart of a hostile and meaningless universe, and are doomed to die, individually and collectively in a relatively short time. And if push came from the truth, I think Professor. Although he says he clings to the objective moral values, is using these terms in an idiosyncratic way. To say that objective moral values \u200b\u200bexist, is to affirm that the statements of moral value as "Rape is wrong" are true, whether one believes or not. But Professor Nielsen refuses to discuss the truth of moral statements. And, as JL Mackie and Ruse , can not seem to affirm the objective value of human beings.
But the fact is that objective values \u200b\u200bexist, and we all know. There is no reason to deny the objective reality of moral values \u200b\u200bis to deny the objective reality of the physical world. In particular, it is clear that evil exists. Some things are very bad! And so, paradoxically, evil actually serves to establish the existence of God. Because if the target values \u200b\u200bcan not exist without God, and there are no objective values \u200b\u200bas evidenced by the reality of evil, it follows inevitably that God exists. Thus, while the evil in the sense that it calls into question the existence of God, in a fundamental sense proving the existence of God, because evil can not exist without God.
These arguments are only part of the evidence that God exists. The prominent philosopher Alvin Plantinga recently exposed two dozen arguments for the existence of God. The cumulative force of these arguments makes it likely that the existence of God.
In short, if my three theses are correct, then evil does not make unlikely the existence of the Christian God. On the contrary, given the extent of the evidence, the existence of God is very likely. And therefore, the intellectual problem of evil is not to overthrow the existence of God.
0 comments:
Post a Comment